Re: [RFC] Nullable Casting

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 06:05, David Rodrigues <david.proweb@gmail.com> wrote: > > Question: why just not check if $itemsPerPage is set like: > ... > Answer: because in this example we could do that (although the new solution is much more > practical). Well, I disagree on that. That code is perfectly fine to me, and having more operators to understand and remember is harder than having fewer operators to understand and remember. Also, I have a suspicion that the reason why you think this might be needed is that you're doing too much work outside Input::get. If you made a separate function that for Input::getInt that did all the work of casting the value to int when appropriate, you wouldn't have to repeat all the work in the functions that are calling Input::get. i.e. you're causing a lot of typing to be required to further process the result of a function, when you should be making new function that does more precisely what you want. > In another case, I have a static factory method that depends of an ?int to be created, and I > can't just skip it with an if() if user input is empty. But please can you post the actual use-case you _need_ this for. Or possibly update the RFC with that example. Currently, imo, the RFC is just presenting an alternative syntax for something that is not 100% needed. I do kind of like the idea in the RFC, but I think it needs a better argument for it. cheers Dan Ack btw, the code you posted as: > $itemsPerPage = Input::get('itemsPerPage'); > > if ($itemsPerPage) { > $paginator->setItemsPerPage((int) $itemsPerPage); // OK > } isn't quite the same as what the RFC does, right? The code equivalent for the RFC would be this I think: $itemsPerPage = Input::get('itemsPerPage'); if ($itemsPerPage !== null) { $itemsPerPage = (int)$itemsPerPage; } $paginator->setItemsPerPage($itemsPerPage); which even avoids the magic/horribleness of having to understand what PHP thinks is empty.